Edward H. Shortliffe,
Arizona State University,
United States

Brief Bio
Available soon.

Abstract
Available soon.

Vimla L. Patel,
Arizona State University,
United States

Brief Bio
Vimla L. Patel, PhD, DSc, FRSC: Patel is Professor and Vice-Chair of the Arizona State University’s Department of Biomedical Informatics and the Director of the Center for Decision Making and Cognition in the Ira A. Fulton School of Engineering. She came to Arizona from Columbia University in New York in March 2007. She is also a professor of Basic Medical Sciences in the University of Arizona, College of Medicine in Phoenix. She has Bachelor of Science degree in Biochemistry from Otago University in New Zealand and her MA and PhD in Cognitive and Educational Psychology from McGill University in Montreal, Canada.

Dr. Patel is recognized as a leader in applied cognitive science research for models of decision-making and studies of human-computer interaction in health care. An elected fellow of the Royal Society of Canada (Academy of Social Sciences) and also of the American College of Medical Informatics, she was a recipient of the annual Swedish “Woman of Science” award in 1999. Her research interests include human performance, decision-making, medical errors, assessment of human-computer interaction in healthcare domains. She is a prolifric writer with an extensive publication record, and is an associate editor of Journal of Biomedical Informatics and on the editorial board of Journal of AI in Medicine and Advances in Health Scince Education. Her research is funded by National Intitute of Mental Health, National Library of Medicine (NIH), USArmy (TARTC) and the James S McDonnell Foundation. http://www.fulton.asu.edu/~patel


Abstract
Given the complexities of modern medicine, delivery of safe and timely care is a huge challenge. Errors, misunderstandings, and inaccuracies, large and small, are routine occurrences in our everyday activities. Health information technology (HIT) has undoubtedly reduced the risk of serious injury for patients during hospital stays. However, its true potential for preventing medical errors remains only partially realized and, paradoxically, systems may even give rise to hazards of their own. There is a growing recognition that many errors are neither solely attributable to lapses in human performance nor to flawed technology. Rather they develop as a product of the interaction between human beings and technology. In our view, errors are the product of cognitive activity in human adaptation to complex physical, social, and cultural environments. How well the design of health IT complements its intended setting and purpose is critically important for safe and effective performance. It is the flawed design and poor integration with clinical work, rather than any person or the technology itself, that is at the root of its suboptimal performance. Attention to the design principles of human–computer interaction (HCI) in clinical software design is needed as a critical safety hazard. In this presentation, I argue for a place of prominence for cognitive science. Cognitive science provides a framework for the analysis and modeling of complex human performance and has considerable applicability to a range of issues in informatics. I will discuss how cognitive science principles are applicable to understanding HCI concerns that make the integration of computing and clinical practice a difficult task.

Patel, V.L., & Kaufman, D.R., (2006). Cognitive science and biomedical informatics. In E.H. Shortliffe & J.J. Cimino (Eds.), Biomedical informatics: Computer applications in health care and biomedicine (3rd ed., pp. 133-185). New York: Springer-Verlag.

Pier Luigi Emiliani,
Institute of Applied Physics “Nello Carrara” (IFAC) of the Italian National Research Council (CNR),
Italy

Brief Bio
Personal data
Education: Physics, University of Florence.
Current position: Director of Institute of Applied Physics “Nello Carrara” (IFAC) of the Italian National Research Council (CNR), President of the CNR Research Area in Florence.

Work experience:
Research in the theory and applications of digital signal processing and information technology. Management of research projects. Lecturer on signal processing at the University of Florence (Electronics Engineering Department). Applications in telecommunications problems.

Specific experience:
Applications of digital signal processing in aids for disabled persons.

EC Funded Projects:
Project Leader of the Concerted Action on “Rehabilitation of the Blind” - DG XII, Biomedical Engineering Committee (1988-91). Vice-Chairman of the projects COST 219 and COST 219 bis. Project Manager of the RACE Project R1066 - IPSNI, “Integration of People with Special Needs in the Integrated Broadband Telecommunication Network” (1989-1991). Cooperation with Handynet, DG V (1988-1991). Project Manager of the TIDE Project 103 - GUIB “Textual and Graphical User Interfaces for Blind People” (1992-1993). Project Manager of the RACE Project 2009 - IPSNI II “Access to Broadband Services and Applications by People with Special Needs” (1992-1995). Project Manager of the TIDE Project 215 - GUIB 2 “Textual and Graphical User Interfaces for Blind People” (1993-1994). Responsible for Line F “Emerging Areas of Potential Rehabilitation Technology Research and Development” of the TIDE study HEART “Horizontal European Activities in Rehabilitation Technology” (1993-1994). Project Manager of the TIDE Project 1001 ACCESS “Development Platform for Unified ACCESS to Enabling Environments” (1994-1996). Technical Manager of the ACTS Project 042 AVANTI “Adaptive and Adaptable Interactions for Multimedia Telecommunications Applications” (1995-1998). Technical Manager of the IST Project PALIO “Personalised Access to Local Information and services for tOurists” (2000-2003). Partner of the Thematic Network IS4ALL “Information Society for All” (2000-2003). National Contact Centre of EDeAN “European Design for All e-Accessibility Network” (2003-). European representative in the Advisory Committee of the Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI) (1998-). Vice-chairman of the project Cost 219ter “Accessibility for All to Services and Terminals for Next Generation Networks” (2002-2007). Responsible of the Secretariat of the “European Design for All eAccessibility Network” (EDeAN) (2007). Project manager of the Coordination Action ICT 033838 DfA@eInclusion “Design for All for eInclusion” (2007-2009).

Publications:
(Co-)author of over 160 technical papers published in scientific archival journals, books, and international conferences on speech processing, signal processing and communication aids.


Abstract
According to the eEurope 2005 and i2010 Action Plans, eInclusion, i.e. the access to information and telecommunication systems and services, is considered crucial for the independent living of all European citizens. It is also claimed that, in order to reach this goal a Design for All (DfA) approach should be used. This implies that, in the specification and implementation of new products, the needs, requirements and preferences of all users must be taken into account, to the greatest extent possible, with a special attention to all groups at risk of exclusion, including people with disabilities and elderly people.
The discussion in the lecture is based in the following main assumptions: (i) the correct definition of eInclusion is the one published in the 2006 Riga ministerial declaration (e-Inclusion means both inclusive ICT and the use of ICT to achieve wider inclusion objectives. It focuses on participation of all individuals and communities in all aspects of the information society. e-Inclusion policy, therefore, aims at reducing gaps in ICT usage and promoting the use of ICT to overcome exclusion, and improve economic performance, employment opportunities, quality of life, social participation and cohesion); (ii) adaptations through Assistive Technologies are not sufficient to capture the potentialities of ICT in supporting people’s inclusion, but a shift toward the “Design for All” approach, as claimed in the above cited documents, is necessary; (iii) the European society is migrating toward an information society, described by the Ambient Intelligence (AmI) paradigm; (iv) there will be a (long) transition to a complete AmI implementation, when many inclusion feature will be included in the mainstream developments; (v) and, therefore, the Assistive Technology and Design for All approach will need to coexist and cooperate in the short/medium term to grant as much as possible the inclusion of people with activity limitation.
The present situation is described, both from the perspective of Information and Communication Technology (ICT) and Assistive Technology (AT). Furthermore, evidence is presented of the fact that DFA in ICT is not only an interesting conceptual construction and politically correct strategy, but that technical approaches exist that can actually make it real.
In the near future, ICT will continue to develop with a Design for All approach, therefore producing more accessible mainstream technology. This will cause not only the emergence of intelligent objects but also their inclusion into AmI-like environments, i.e. environments that incorporate partially and in interconnected islands AmI concepts. AmI will materialise when the individual AmI-like islands will merge and when enough intelligence will be available to guarantee functionality and security of the infrastructure and the corresponding services throughout the entire society.
It is argued that the transition toward AmI is undergoing in an incremental way, through the development of AmI-like environments. The main conceptual change is supposed to be the use of the concept of integrated support. So far, assistive technology has supported the augmentation of the capabilities of the individuals and the adaptation of single artefacts for accessibility. The new approach is based on the assumption that the artefacts in the environment are interconnected and integrated in an “intelligent” control system, in order to support people with services and applications that offer useful functionalities. Therefore, the main emphasis is not on technology itself and its adaptation, but on useful functionalities the environments could or should offer irrespective of their technical implementation. Services in the environment will reduce the level of capacity needed to carry out the required activities.
Finally the far future, as described in the ISTAG scenarios, where a complete implementation of the AmI environment is assumed, is described. The possible impact on some groups of people with activity limitations is briefly analysed with suggestions of possible new opportunities and possible problems. The main conceptual change is that e-accessibility has dealt with tasks to be carried out to use equipment and services, while the AmI environment is dealing with goals of users to be automatically identified and proactively facilitated.

Maciej Ogorzalek,
Jagiellonian University,
Poland

Brief Bio
Available soon.

Abstract
Available soon.